United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
M. Brinkema, United States District Judge.
the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
issued by a magistrate judge on March 23, 2018 [Dkt. No. 20],
which recommended that a default declaratory judgment be
entered against the defendant Greenly Group for Solar
Technologies, Ltd. ("defendant" or
"Greenly"). Report at 10-11. The parties were
advised that any objections to the Report had to be filed
within 14 days and that failure to file a timely objection
waived the right to appeal the substance of the Report and
any judgment based upon the Report. Id. at 11-12. As
of April 18, 2018, no party has filed an objection. The Court
has reviewed the Report, plaintiff's motion for default
judgment, and the case file and adopts the Report in full.
magistrate judge properly determined that the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(2) because the parties are diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Id. at
4-5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant
under 28 U.S.C. § 293 because the defendant, a British
Virgin Islands entity to which the patent rights at issue
were assigned, does not reside in the United States and
failed to designate an individual in the United States to
receive service on its behalf. Id. at 5; see
also 28 U.S.C. §293 ("The court shall have the
same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or
rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were
personally within the jurisdiction of the court.").
Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 293. Report at 5.
Service was made upon the person who was involved in the
patent assignment to the defendant and by publication.
Id. at 2-4. Because the defendant did not file a
response within the 21 days of service by publication, the
Clerk of Court properly entered a default on January 26, 2018
[Dkt. No. 10]. Id. at 3.
magistrate judge correctly determined that plaintiff
Elizabeth Cooper ("plaintiff or "Cooper") has
pleaded the requirements for obtaining declaratory relief by
alleging that non-party Kagan Ceran
("Ceran") fraudulently transferred his patent rights
to the defendant in violation of California's Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act, California Civil Code
§§3439.04-05. Id. at 6-9. Specifically,
the magistrate judge found that after plaintiff filed an
arbitration demand to resolve a dispute with Ceran in
California, Ceran transferred his patent rights (which were
his primary assets) to the defendant 30 days before the
arbitrator issued plaintiff an award of $1, 216, 404.30,
failed to notify plaintiff of the assignment during the
arbitration, and subsequently fled from the United States to
Turkey, all in an effort to avoid plaintiffs ability to
collect her judgment. Id. at 6-8. The magistrate
judge further correctly found that plaintiff pleaded the
requirements of a §3439.04(a)(2) violation because there
is no indication that the defendant paid Ceran consideration
for the patent rights and Ceran should have reasonably
believed that he would owe plaintiff money in connection with
the pending arbitration. Id. at 8-9. As a result of
these findings, the magistrate judge concluded that the
defendant holds the patent rights for plaintiff in a
constructive trust because the defendant fraudulently gained
possession of the patent rights, which constitutes the trust
res, and plaintiff established a right to the trust res.
Id. at 9-10.
reasons in the Report which have been fully adopted by this
Court, plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt 11] is
GRANTED, and it is hereby
that plaintiffs updated proposed judgment will be entered
against the defendant.
Clerk is directed to enter judgment in plaintiffs favor
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55, forward copies of this Order and
the judgment to counsel of record and the defendant, and
close this civil action.
 On February 16, 2018, the magistrate
judge ordered plaintiff to supplement the record to
demonstrate that the patent rights in question are valued at
more than $75, 000 [Dkt. No. 16]. Report at 4. Plaintiff
submitted the declaration of Chris Toffales
("Toffales") "an operating executive in
engineering- and technology-intensive businesses" and a
mergers and acquisitions professional, who assessed the value
of the technology and intellectual property in United States
Patent No. 8, 449, 940, titled "Deposition of
High-Purity Silicon via High-Surface Area Gas-Solid or
Gas-Liquid Interfaces and Recovery via Liquid Phase, "
as at least in excess of $75, 000. [Dkt. No.
 Plaintiff brought two arbitration
proceedings against Ceran for breach of a business agreement
in 2010, and subsequently obtained two arbitral awards
against him. Report at 1 n. 1. Before the first award was
issued to plaintiff, Ceran transferred ownership of several
patent rights to the defendant, Id. at 8. Following
plaintiffs arbitral awards, plaintiff obtained judgments
against him. Id. at 2 n. 2.
 The magistrate judge properly found
that plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys' fees, costs,
and post- and pre judgment interest because plaintiff's
pleadings fail to provide amounts for any of these costs and
does not seek monetary judgment. Report ...